Will we "Humans" evolve backwards? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T15:35:00Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/will-we-humans-evolve?groupUrl=science&commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A471751&groupId=1982180%3AGroup%3A815&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWe have been, are now, and wi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-16:1982180:Comment:13277382013-06-16T02:36:42.548ZDave Ghttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DaveG
<p>We have been, are now, and will continue to evolve. What may change is the nature of the selective pressures we live under. </p>
<p>Evolution has not forward or backward, up or down, higher or lower. It simply takes place.</p>
<p>We have been, are now, and will continue to evolve. What may change is the nature of the selective pressures we live under. </p>
<p>Evolution has not forward or backward, up or down, higher or lower. It simply takes place.</p> The Human race is evolving bu…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-16:1982180:Comment:13279182013-06-16T02:29:35.972ZGary Clousehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GaryClouse
<p>The Human race is evolving but evolution has no "forward" or "backward".</p>
<p>The Human race is evolving but evolution has no "forward" or "backward".</p> tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-14:1982180:Comment:13272812013-06-14T23:49:41.715ZReg The Fronkey Farmerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RegPerry
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE1og6tgbl40XF2VEOGX8XFr-qgrPbjDDkovOp*k6E1*a3xo*c6jOiI6bVyHa*ENtdF6pWVPb1sJuo02etScl1rF/misconceptions_beavers.gif" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE1og6tgbl40XF2VEOGX8XFr-qgrPbjDDkovOp*k6E1*a3xo*c6jOiI6bVyHa*ENtdF6pWVPb1sJuo02etScl1rF/misconceptions_beavers.gif" width="450"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE1og6tgbl40XF2VEOGX8XFr-qgrPbjDDkovOp*k6E1*a3xo*c6jOiI6bVyHa*ENtdF6pWVPb1sJuo02etScl1rF/misconceptions_beavers.gif" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE1og6tgbl40XF2VEOGX8XFr-qgrPbjDDkovOp*k6E1*a3xo*c6jOiI6bVyHa*ENtdF6pWVPb1sJuo02etScl1rF/misconceptions_beavers.gif" width="450"/></a></p> From: http://www.imdb.com/me…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-14:1982180:Comment:13274132013-06-14T22:26:55.401ZMabelhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/mutineerMaybelline
<p>From: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1617991680/tt0063442" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1617991680/tt0063442</a></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE0PYY8hIcm*Ec1DgicKuaKiJckUMNlSZFjS3R0DeYXPH5-KLJgydvyrMETCjBOKS5cyn7eJljBE4syOg7p6O4E7/ape2.PNG"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE0PYY8hIcm*Ec1DgicKuaKiJckUMNlSZFjS3R0DeYXPH5-KLJgydvyrMETCjBOKS5cyn7eJljBE4syOg7p6O4E7/ape2.PNG" width="338"/></a></p>
<p>From: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1617991680/tt0063442" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1617991680/tt0063442</a></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE0PYY8hIcm*Ec1DgicKuaKiJckUMNlSZFjS3R0DeYXPH5-KLJgydvyrMETCjBOKS5cyn7eJljBE4syOg7p6O4E7/ape2.PNG"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VrpMXk5gFE0PYY8hIcm*Ec1DgicKuaKiJckUMNlSZFjS3R0DeYXPH5-KLJgydvyrMETCjBOKS5cyn7eJljBE4syOg7p6O4E7/ape2.PNG" width="338"/></a></p> What isn't being used may eve…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-14:1982180:Comment:13274122013-06-14T21:57:28.469ZDoug Reardonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DougReardon
<p>What isn't being used may eventually disappear, but we are also evolving better drivers.</p>
<p>What isn't being used may eventually disappear, but we are also evolving better drivers.</p> @ Dale - Really nice post. I…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-14:1982180:Comment:13272592013-06-14T21:20:45.780ZTorgonoushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Torgonous
<p>@ Dale - Really nice post. I think too often people, even atheists have somewhat of a misconception about the fundamentals of evolution and you really captured it. Put most simply anywhere there is a place where a procreation/survival advantage exists and some portion of a diverse population (genetic diversity/mutation) is able to harness said advantage, they will at a macro level be more successful in passing on whatever those genes are that allow them to benefit from the advantage, and…</p>
<p>@ Dale - Really nice post. I think too often people, even atheists have somewhat of a misconception about the fundamentals of evolution and you really captured it. Put most simply anywhere there is a place where a procreation/survival advantage exists and some portion of a diverse population (genetic diversity/mutation) is able to harness said advantage, they will at a macro level be more successful in passing on whatever those genes are that allow them to benefit from the advantage, and thus more of those genetics (and phenotypic effects) are expressed through the generations. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Going to a more broad scope to lend my two cents to the original question. First off, I think the concept of regression doesn't exactly apply to evolution because it implies a direction, where evolution isn't directional. It can seem that way at times, but it's more about adaptability to whatever the prevailing environment is. If we (as humans) have fundamentally evolved greater brain power/processing than our chimp cousins it's because there was a benefit to doing so, and our brains grew, and eventually it led to an increase in intelligence, and ultimately our creation of vast civilizations where intellect was such a major contributor in the place of brute force as it were. If as we create more things that make our lives easier, or extend our lifespans, or make access to knowledge easier, there will likely be a void where some humans will likely find some advantage to procreation/survival. I have a few hunches of possible "directions", based on some personal thought processes:</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>The "Peacock" Evolution</strong></em></span></p>
<p>As knowledge becomes SO ubiquitous in our society there will always be a niche for the thinkers to push that envelope, but eventually (once the ID boobies GTFO of the way) our education system will start to make leaps and strides to raise en masse global intelligence. Basically the vast majority of people will have a high enough intellect to make it a less influential trait. At that point, we go through the peacock transition where selection will start being made on a "whole" package mate concept. No more having to balance beauty or brains, it will be about those who have both. So where we have seen an expanse in the intellect over geological ages, we'd see a corresponding increase in whatever traits society starts to find beautiful. Most likely these would correlate to....</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>The "Fittest (and survival thereof)" Evolution</strong></em></span></p>
<p>We already see today a shift in the understanding of fitness and health. Whether we're talking GMO's or organics...this diet vs. that one...the importance of exercise...SMOKING BAD!!!! All these things would likely lead to a mass outbreak of, and a rampant engagement in health. This might be more attributable to a memetic evolution than a purely genetic one, but it could in theory start to make a significant impact on what the people find attractive, which in turn leads to mate selection pressures, which in turn starts the ball rolling on a genetic evolution.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>The "De-Evolution" Evolution</strong></em></span></p>
<p>Much like idiocracy, the concept here is a regression in intellect but unlike in the movie, the premise isn't based on the number of dumb people breeding outnumbering those that are. This would be a temporary effect IMHO whereas a systematic shift of need for intellect decreasing because we have machines/computers to do that for us would mean that by and large the energy spent "thinking" would put the possessors at a disadvantage (however slight) compared to people who adapt to whatever system replaces intellect as a dominant trait...probably some form of physical advancement like strength.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>The "Enlightenment" Evolution</strong></em></span></p>
<p>Okay, this one is probably a bit of a pipe dream, but essentially it boils down to a collective (global/societal) shift that realizes that all the resources we waste in war could better serve humanity. World peace happens and intellect flourishes. So does every extension of that, and the expressions. Great music, art, medical technology, etc. By and large humans come together, nations "dissolve" and we all live happily forever and ever.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And yes, that last one is corny and a pipe dream but it would be in theory possible. I do think Dale hit on another BIG point though which is that the rate of evolutionary change in large animals like us is a very slow process. Of course that's based on the incrementally small shifts in <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>natural</strong></em></span> selection, we are (in theory at least) capable of creating <span style="text-decoration: underline;">un</span><span style="text-decoration: underline;">natural</span> selections pressures that would be significantly larger and possibly speed up this process. But given what we have come to expect of human evolution, it is likely that we will have either died out or killed everyone in some global nuke-fest before we really started to see true genetic level evolution. </p>
<p></p>
<p>All this of course comes from the mind of a primate, so is subject to error and revision...I know I'm CLOSE to perfect...but I'm not quite there yet. :p</p> Given enough time, genetic dr…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-01:1982180:Comment:12873882013-04-01T22:44:05.469ZDale Headleyhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DaleHeadley
<p>Given enough time, genetic drift could lead anywhere, but the timescale required probably means the human species is more likely to have become extinct before any significant changes occur by that mechanism.</p>
<p>Evolution is primarily driven by the emergence, usually from genetic mutations, of characteristis that tend to provide a reproductive advantage. Any characteristic that appears, but makes no difference on the chances of survival to a reproductive age will not continue to evolve,…</p>
<p>Given enough time, genetic drift could lead anywhere, but the timescale required probably means the human species is more likely to have become extinct before any significant changes occur by that mechanism.</p>
<p>Evolution is primarily driven by the emergence, usually from genetic mutations, of characteristis that tend to provide a reproductive advantage. Any characteristic that appears, but makes no difference on the chances of survival to a reproductive age will not continue to evolve, linearly. Therefore, "backwards" evolution through natural selection is highly unlikely. Furthermore, what counts as "backwards" is culturally biased. But that does not mean that we can't see significant changes in our morphology for reasons other than evolution.</p>
<p>We have become a taller species, especially in the U.S., in just the last 100 years. But that is NOT evolution. That is a result of medical and nutritional changes. True, a case could be made that tall men have a reproduction advantage over short men, in which case we would indeed evolve to become a taller species. But that takes many more years than just a century. </p>
<p>However, there is one caveat: if the Republicans and the Jesus freaks take over the country, being stupid may indeed provide a better chance of survival. If so, we could be looking at a future as envisioned in the Luke Wilson film, “Idiocracy.”</p>
<p>The evolution pictured in “Idiocracy,” however is not so much driven by survival as it is by choice. The writer, Mike Judge (“Office Space”), imagines that the ACTUAL FACT that stupid people are reproducing at a much faster rate, BY CHOICE, than are smart people, means that future populations are sure to be less intelligent. Can’t really disagree with that. Beware the G.O.P.! </p> I'm wondering if we are still…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-20:1982180:Comment:10314912012-01-20T20:38:59.657ZSerzonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Serzon
<p>I'm wondering if we are still evolving anyway.... or are we?</p>
<p>I'm wondering if we are still evolving anyway.... or are we?</p> Sorry, I didn't read through…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-12-28:1982180:Comment:4724562010-12-28T03:47:07.409ZAllen Sneedhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AllenSneed
<p>Sorry, I didn't read through all of the comments here and I'm sure more than a few people pointed out the "backwards evolution" error.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The idea of a evolving to a "weaker species" doesn't really make sense either. The individuals who are better at passing on their genes are the ones who drive evolution. If they are physically weaker or intellectually weaker or creatively weaker it only matters so far as it affects their ability to survive. And of course, their survival and…</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn't read through all of the comments here and I'm sure more than a few people pointed out the "backwards evolution" error.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The idea of a evolving to a "weaker species" doesn't really make sense either. The individuals who are better at passing on their genes are the ones who drive evolution. If they are physically weaker or intellectually weaker or creatively weaker it only matters so far as it affects their ability to survive. And of course, their survival and the duration of their survival directly relates to their reproductive fitness. So evolution tends to weed out the "weak" through natural selection anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But overall, evolution is only concerned with what works better and what doesn't work as well at allowing individuals to pass on their genes to future generations. If for some reason more girls dig stupid, scrawny guys who can't lift a pencil to write a love poem then those guys are the evolutionary winners in a society where we are not in danger of dying from such characteristics.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, there are plenty of circumstances in which the reproductive success of a species could result in its demise. Take humans for example. We have been so good at passing on our genes to the next generation that we have overpopulated the planet and now stand at the precipice of our own extinction because of it. By that I mean we very well may kill this planet and barring anywhere else to go will likely all die too. How's that motivation for successfully passing on your genes?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>:)</p> Well as I replied to Ava befo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-12-28:1982180:Comment:4721512010-12-28T00:00:01.520ZSadly 'M' iCantSayhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SadlyiCantSay
<p>Well as I replied to Ava before, describing it as a "backward" evolution was wrong. Sorry again! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But does evolving to a weaker species that may not survive nature considered <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span></strong> improving to what the nature needs? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can read my reply to Ava here in this discussion to understand what I 'wrongly' described as a "backward" evolution. </p>
<p>Well as I replied to Ava before, describing it as a "backward" evolution was wrong. Sorry again! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But does evolving to a weaker species that may not survive nature considered <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span></strong> improving to what the nature needs? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can read my reply to Ava here in this discussion to understand what I 'wrongly' described as a "backward" evolution. </p>